1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is well-known.

On March 15, 2014, a foreigner with the nationality of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “C-3”) applied for refugee status to the Defendant on March 31, 2014 while entering the Republic of Korea for short-term visit (C-3) and staying there.

B. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as “ sufficiently-founded fears that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 31, 2015, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on June 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is well-known.

There was a fact that a member of ADF was in charge of transporting goods or transporting documents, but he was arrested in a female party for this reason, and was detained in custody.

Therefore, the plaintiff is likely to do so.

The defendant's disposition of this case, which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee even though it is highly likely that the plaintiff would be stuffed and stuffed when returning to Korea, is unlawful.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the above facts of recognition and the purport of the evidence No. 4 and the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

According to the plaintiff's statement, the plaintiff is neither a regular member of the ADF Party nor a member of the ADF Party, was engaged in secret and did not actively engage in political activities.

Government Armed Forces was simple as a member of the opposite party.